daltontrees

I have sent you a PM on a related matter

The law expects some toleration of encroachment and minor nuisance (see Fearn v Tate Gallery if you want to overdose on legalese) but you cant acquiesce to it.

'knowing the tree was there' is not a valid argument. There's a principle in law called 'coming to the nuisance' and the courts over the centuries have settled that it does not diminish the nuisancer's duty.

It can be theirs if you have a good case AND deep pockets. No amount of money will replace a good case.

If you had you wouldn't commend it quite so readily.

All tree vauations systems in the UK are artificial. Especially CAVAT which invariably grossly overvalues trees. It was developed by and much loved by local authorities, and was intended for use by them to value only local authority trees. Its use in civil claims is not supported by case law. The Helliwell system produces more credible figures but it too is artificial since it monetises the points attributable to a tree when deciding whether it should be TPO'd. The CTLA system is probaby the best there is since it tailors the valuation approach to the circumstances. When it produces outlandish figures it says these need to be tempered by reference to how much the real estate is worth. No-one can value trees just from photographs. Trees are propery, and the old adage applies... ther are only 3 things that affect the value of property - location, location and location.

There are situations where the Council could be compelled to prune or remove, either by court order or expectation of losing a court case. Dr. Mynors observes that these rarely occur because of the cost of litigation. But not because of the absence of a right. Proving the right of self-abatement is easier than proving the case for an injunction. Mere encroachment is abatable, full stop. Forcing the tree owner to do it and pay for it appears to have a higher threshold of 'actionable nuisance'. If it is based on dampness to the building a causative link would have to be proven. I am convinced that if case law continues to dribble out until the end of time there will never be a simple rule that predicts success in litigation. The Tate Modern case recently went on for pages trying to pin down the modern law of nuisance, going far beyond what was needed for the case in hand. It alsways comes down to fact and degree, and the behaviour and depth of pockets of the combatants. Put simply,the trees have no right to be there. If they are causing damage, even indirectly, they should be removed. It is probably easier and cheaper (however galling it might feel) to take matters into you own hands than to face the expense, delays and uncertainty of forcing the tree owner to do it. But the right exists to be enforced. Have a look at Delaware Mansions v Westminster (appeal) for more on rights to injunctions and damages.

2 issues. Does anything need to be done? Under what legal authority can anybody do it? Can't tell from the photographs if anything needs done. Probably just a matter of time before something needs done. It would require personal inspection. Control of the land initially is with the owner. If someone dies without anyone to inherit, the land passes to the Crown, and a request for confirmation of this could be made to the Treasury Solicitor. If there are risks they can be brought to thte Crown's attention, it will have legal liability in negligence for any harm or damage and may have a general insurance policy to address claims, or may be self-insuring. I can't see why the Council would have any powers to intervene. It's not a matter of refusing to act, it MUST have statutory authority to do so. If it's not a risk to road users, I can't think of any other statutory basis.

I don't agree with your analysis. Nuisance is not just physical damage. It is deprivation of legal rights to use and enjoy property. It is always a matter of fact and degree. And just because there is a right of self abatement that is not the only remedy.

Ginkgo is dioecious, get a male plant and yuo'll never have the smell issue.

You only need to notify things that otherwise would be an offence - topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction. If you are satisfied that all these potential offences will be avoided, there's nothing to notify.

Meripilus giganteus for sure. Commonly decays the underside of structural roots. You have the possibility of whole tree failure there. You really ought to have that looked at properly, but going by the pics it's just a matter of time, unless by some fluke it is perfectly balanced and not exposed to winds. Getting it reduced or taken down while it is still climbable could reduce the costs of an otherwise tricky removal. Can't necessarily assume your insurance woudl cover you if it wiped out your shed, or worse.

could be a long while before this is a problem. Dryad Saddle rarely a cause ot panic on Sycamore, it's pretty slow moving. In your situation, it would be possble to bring forward occlusion of the wound by CAREFULLY chiseling off the excess deadwood of the stub to get it as close as possible to the advancing woundwood. Just around the edges.

Blank!😬

The Council should be reminded as many times as necessary that it's not an 'application' (it's a notification) and it doesn't need to be 'validated', there is in fact no statutory validation requirement or process. Likewise it can't be refused. But quite rightly a Council should say if it considers that the notification does not meet the requirements. An important distinction between CA notifications and TPO applications is that the latter must give reasons for the proposed works, but tehr is no statutory requirement for CA notices to give reasons. Peronally as a matter of educating the Council and avoiding delays for my customer or client I'd tell the Council that, and be clear that they're not getting any supporting report, and that the 6 weeks clock is running down. CAs are an imposition on landowners and the tree protection is precautionary only. Notification is meant to be easy and free.

I'd put money on it being Sorbus or one of those newfangled Aria/Torminalis efforts. No way it's Acer, Tilia or Betula

There is nothing specific about this in legislation, and I am not aware of any case law. The LPA has 2 roles. It has to decide if the trees are important enough to be protected, this can be relevant to trees on and off site. If important they should be retained and protected. BS5837 etc blah blah. What is questionable is whether it should be protecting what amounts to encroachment and possible common law nuisance. It also has to decide whether the CA tree is so important for the amenity of the area that it should be TPOd. The reason is that generally a planning application replaces the need for a separate CA notification or TPO application. So it could TPO the tree and prevent any development that would harm it. This could exceed the RPA, which is really just a temporary made up thing that only preserves about 1/4 of the roots. Remember, CAs don't imply the trees are important. It's jsut a precaution to allow the LPA to decide if they are in the context of any threat to their remvoal or harm.

You're right, but if it's not about trees I'm just not interested. There are a million other places I can be passively subjected to polarised vitriolic drivel.

There are a couple of threads where a few people are being unbelievably rude to each other, churning out some fairly vile stuff. I simply ignore these and concentrate on the bits of Arbtalk that are about trees. SO simple.

It's not clear Are you saying 'development is taking PLACE on the adjacent land'? Are both sides of the boundary in a CA?

Have a look at the attached chart of hybrids. Not even a complete list. Dirty stop-outs, the lot of them. willow hybrids.pdf

Looks pure goat. But it's a messy genus.

Almost 100% it's goat willow (salix caprea)

British Mycological Society has recently been discussing various Phaeolus finds on Sorbus. Incidentally, Sorbus intermedia has recently been reclassified as Scandosorbus intermedia.

No-one can answer this completely. Perhaps there is just a vague fear of shrinkable clay issues. For heave, there is such a combination of factors that ALL have to be present that it is statistically unlikely. If the surveyor is in possession of all the facts (geology, foundation depths, history, tree species/age/distances) nothing we can say is of any use. If he isn't, then we don't have the facts and nothing we can say is of any use.